Munchausen Syndrome

[Mighty_Emperor]

RainyOcean: That is one of the important issues - it is being portrayed (by the anti-MSbP camp) as being a kind of assault on motherhood but I'd suspect it has more to do with opportunity and/or the fact that men may just abuse their children in different ways.

Something like this:

September 3, 2004

Calling the Cops on Your Own Child

Another Form of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy?

By JANE STILLWATER

Remember the famous story about the mom in Florida who was all loving and caring to her poor dear sick child? While this child was in and out of hospitals and enduring exploratory surgery, the mom was always so saintly and comforting. "What a good parent," the medical professionals all said. Until one day a nurse caught this perfect parent placing fecal matter in her child's IV.

"Why did you do it?" she was asked.

"I wanted the attention."

Recently, I think that I have had the unfortunate experience of running across another case of Munchausen Syndrome by proxy. A 15-year-old boy that we know has a father who is a psychologist. And this boy has been in and out of mental hospitals, desert boot camps and mental health facilities all his life. He has been kidnapped by so-called "transporters" in the middle of the night and dragged off to the Utah badlands to be starved and force-marched "for his own good." He has been shipped off to half-way houses for juvenile delinquents and recovering drug addicts. And he has been going to shrinks since he was three.

This is a sweet child who doesn't use drugs, isn't sexually active, doesn't drink, can play sonatas on the piano and has a great sense of humor. What gives?

Two years ago, this boy made friends with my daughter. Immediately the boy's father started calling me and telling me how screwed up his child was. "You don't know his history," he'd say. "He spends too much time hiding in his room, is afraid to go to school and often runs away." The actuality of the child belied everything the father told me. I just didn't understand.

One day last week, young Jordan ran away -- again. "My father called the police on me!" he said. Meanwhile, the police officer involved in the incident called my house and told me that the father had done this sort of thing before. Many times. "The kid seems normal to me," said the officer.

I didn't know what to do. I sent Jordan back home. That was the law. Then we planned to go on a vacation. We were going to New York City! But Jordan ran again. The father started calling me again. "Has Jordan showed up yet?" At 3 am, Jordan finally showed up. He begged us not to send him back. Then the father started calling me and calling me and calling me and telling me in his most professional voice that, "We need to sit down and talk." At first I wanted to work with Jordan's father. After all, he was a psychologist. And he had such good arguments too. "You just don't know Jordan like I know him. He is a sick kid. He needs help!"

Then Jordan ran to another house but the father's calls kept coming to us. After several days of almost hourly calls at all hours, I began to feel like the father was stalking us. Finally we left for our trip, but he kept calling me and my daughter, even in New York. Then Jordan called me at our hotel. "I am in your house. My father is outside and he has the house surrounded by police! I'm so scared! What should I do?" Finally Jordan voluntarily gave himself up to the police.

Although I was thinking that probably this wasn't as severe a case as when the police in Milwaukee gave the Laotian boy back to Jeffery Dahmer because Dahmer was a smooth-talking man with a very good story, that's the way I felt when the police gave Jordan back to the father.

We have not heard from Jordan since -- except for one small phone call in the middle of the night when Jordan sadly told my daughter that he wanted to commit suicide. We talked him out of it but for how long?

It was then that I finally had the realization. This father had Munchausen Syndrome by proxy! And he was blossoming under all the excitement and attention that he was getting -- from me, from child psychologists, but especially from the police. Sirens, uniforms, badges and everything! But perhaps the ultimate attention he craves will come only when, at Jordan's funeral, he will be the ultimate center of attention -- comforted by his friends as they as they say to him, "You poor man! What you went through! We realize what a wonderful father you were. We know that you did all that you could."

Is there ANYTHING that anybody can do to help Jordan? I myself feel so helpless. I feel like I am in way over my head.

PS: My daughter just got an e-mail from Jordan. It said, "My father has done it again. A new set of transporters have just arrived. They are letting me send this to you before they take me off to another boot camp program. Goodbye."

My daughter is in tears.

--------------------------
Jane Stillwater can be reached through her website: http://jpstillwater.blogspot.com

http://www.counterpunch.org/stillwater09032004.html

 

[Leaferne]

Oh dear God. Poor Jordan. :sob:

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Mother Sentenced For Intentionally Making Son Sick



Reported by: 9News
Web produced by: Liz Foreman
Photographed by: 9News
10/1/04 11:33:33 AM

A West Virginia mother was sentenced to five years probation Friday for intentionally making her son sick.

Barbara Craft put human waste into her 4-year-old son's medicine while he was at Cincinnati Children's Hospital.

Craft's son nearly died from cardiac arrest, doctors said.

Craft pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of attempted child endangering.

Her attorney says she suffers a rare condition called Munchausen Syndrome, where parents fake illness in a child or report false symptoms to gain sympathy or attention for themselves.

The child is no longer in Craft's custody.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2004/local/10/01/mother.html

Also:

Mom sentenced for child's injury <> Barbara Craft received five years' probation Friday for purposely placing feces in her child's medicine line while he was hospitalized.

Craft, 36, accepted a plea deal last month by pleading guilty to attempted child endangering in exchange for prosecutors dropping two counts of child endangering.

The child was 4 when he was taken to Children's Hospital, where Craft stayed overnight with him in his hospital room.

Initially impressed with the mother's devotion to her son, hospital workers soon became suspicious of her after her son became inexplicably ill. The boy, now 6, almost died from cardiac arrest at the hospital but recovered.

When pleading guilty last month, prosecutors said she "knowingly introduced a contaminant" into the bloodstream of her son during an October 2002 stay at the hospital.

Her initial defense was a rare affliction called Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, in which parents fake physical symptoms of illness in a child, give false descriptions of symptoms or even make their children sick, often to get sympathy or to draw attention to the parent.

Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Richard Niehaus placed the West Virginia resident on five years' probation and ordered that her visitation with her son occur only under government supervision.

http://www.cincypost.com/2004/10/02/briefs100204.html

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

No review for mother

Oct 1 2004



THE CONTROVERSIAL Stewartry adoption case has not been recommended for review.

It was one of 35 across the country to come under the microscope after the use of so called “experts” on Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, during hearings.

Only three have been singled out as candidates for a new hearing. But that will only happen if flaws are found with sheriffs’ findings.

Galloway and Upper Nithsdale MSP Alex Fergusson is now to meet with Allen Miller, principal reporter with the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, the body that carried out the review for the Scottish Executive.

Mr Fergusson, one of three MSPs who persuaded the Executive to study the cases again, said: “It did sound as if this particular case was one of those to be reviewed but I have been told it is not.

“I have secured a meeting with Allen Miller and I hope to be able to discuss it with him.

“I will certainly be asking what the difference was between this case and the others which could be reviewed.”

The council social services department brought an action which resulted in two daughters being taken from their mother and adopted.

During the case it was alleged the mother was inducing fits on one of the girls.

There were suggestions the mother suffered from Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, a condition where a person seeks help by harming themselves of their children.

Britain’s leading expert in the condition, who worked with the mother for two weeks, came to the conclusion she was compulsive, mistrusting and suspicious but did not suffer from the condition.

The SCRA findings were published this week.

The review concluded the findings in 32 cases were sound.

But there is to be a further examination of three others.

Under section 85 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, the sheriffs’ findings will be studied.

And that could trigger another hearing.

The mother was not available for comment yesterday.

http://icdumfries.icnetwork.co.uk/n...&headline=no-review-for-mother-name_page.html

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

And I forgot to post this when I read it but it is vitally important and shows the clash between the world of science (which should be about doubt) and the legal system (which is about certainty):

Call for expert witness guidelines in sudden infant death cases

Staff and agencies
Monday September 6, 2004

Expert witnesses in child murder trials must not declare defendants guilty without compelling scientific evidence to back up their theories, a doctors' committee said today.

The recommendation, by a joint working group of the royal colleges of paediatrics and pathologists, aims to reduce the risk of innocent parents being wrongfully convicted in investigations into sudden infant deaths.

The trials of mothers such as Sally Clark, Trupti Patel and Angela Cannings, all wrongly convicted of killing their babies, provoked major concerns about the way cot deaths are investigated.

The Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health today warned expert witnesses that the courtroom was not a place for them to promote maverick theories.

In her introduction to the joint committee's report, the chairwoman, Lady Helena Kennedy QC, wrote: "A doctor can be convinced, based on his or her experience, that a defendant is guilty - but unless there is compelling evidence supported scientifically, he or she should not express that view in criminal proceedings.

"It is also important that the courtroom is not a place used by doctors to fly their personal kites or push a theory from the far end of the medical spectrum."

The Labour peer said that doctors must differentiate between their career and their duty as an expert witness when giving evidence in court. They must remember that defendants were innocent until proven guilty and ensure they acted independently rather than for the prosecution or defence, she said.

Doubts have been raised over evidence given by several experts used in child murder trials, including Professor Sir Roy Meadow, who used statistics on the probability of cot death in the Sally Clark trial. He is currently being investigated by the General Medical Council, which could strike him off the medical register if he is found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

Lady Kennedy said that expert witnesses had a huge responsibility to ensure that their evidence was sound. "It is not enough to use a feeling in your water that something has gone wrong," she said.

She also criticised prosecution and defence teams for putting pressure on witnesses over the strength of their evidence and warned that this had to be guarded against.

"Lawyers on both sides push their experts to be more definite in an opinion than they might otherwise be. I think professional experts have to be resistant to this process," she said.

"The court system doesn't like the answer 'I don't know' to a question, but sometimes that is the only answer and professionals have to be prepared to give it."

The national protocol has been welcomed by mothers wrongly convicted of killings their babies. Mrs Cannings, 41, told GMTV today: "I think the recommendations are clear and I hope that as this report comes out today that it will be actioned as from today and not any more delays with anything - because the more delays, the more trauma that families are going through."

She expressed hope that the protocol would prevent another miscarriage of justice. "They are putting these guidelines in place and I believe that the authorities should learn from all of the past traumas in families and act on it," said Mrs Canning.

The protocol also recommends greater scrutiny of expert witnesses before their evidence is used in the courtroom. It states that any expert giving evidence should have recent clinical experience, peer-reviewed research and should not go outside their area of expertise.

The colleges also called on judges to establish the expertise of witnesses to make sure they are not pushing a theory with an insufficient scientific base. They recommended that judges hold a pre-trial meeting of experts to establish areas of conflict and set them out in writing for the court.

Professor James Underwood, the president of the Royal College of Pathologists, said that in the past, investigations of infant deaths had been more opinion-based and less evidence-based, and this needed to change.

Liz Atkins, the head of policy at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, welcomed the recommendations.

She said: "Deciding whether child abuse has played a part in a child's death can be difficult. It is vital that these tragic incidents are properly investigated without stigmatising parents."

Seven babies in the UK die every week from cot death, also called sudden infant death syndrome (Sids). It remains the most common cause of death in young babies, killing far more each year than road accidents, leukaemia and meningitis put together.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1298475,00.html

See also this article about similar problems with other non-medical areas and experts that have been intorduced into court:

Science on trial

New areas of forensic evidence are being used to gain convictions. But much of it is suspect, say defence lawyers - and judges agree. Alex Wade reports

Tuesday September 28, 2004
The Guardian

When Darren Surutan stood trial in 2002 for the manslaughter of his partner, Sarah Lee, no fewer than 10 medical experts gave evidence on two simple issues: how many bruises were on the victim's face, and had Lee, an alcoholic, acquired them in a fall or been assaulted by the accused? The experts gave profoundly conflicting medical evidence. Last May, the appeal court quashed Surutan's conviction, on the grounds that the jury, with inadequate guidance from the judge, would have been thoroughly confused by the deep disagreements between the experts.

Two months later, Sion Jenkins' 1998 conviction for murdering his foster daughter Billie-Jo was quashed when the court of appeal ruled that new forensic evidence made his conviction unsafe. Jenkins is on conditional bail with a retrial date provisionally set for April.

Other high-profile cases, including those of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark, freed after their convictions for murdering their babies were overturned, have put a question mark over the way in which forensic evidence is used. Public belief in experts appears to be at an all-time low, as acknowledged by the Expert Witness Institute in publicity material for its conference next month. Noting that "expert evidence is under attack", it exhorts prospective attendees to "come along ... and help us restore public confidence in expert witnesses".

Jane Hickman, a criminal defence solicitor and secretary of the Criminal Appeal Lawyers Association (Cala), agrees that the system is flawed. "No one asks, 'How far should we go with forensic evidence?' and it's increasingly becoming the whole story in a trial. The trend, as science advances, is for the Crown to adduce evidence that is not sufficiently developed. Juries are being asked to draw conclusions that the evidence can't bear." And in a political climate where defendants are seen as getting off lightly, ever more esoteric expert evidence can, according to Hickman, unduly sway a jury. "There are more and more branches of expertise being proclaimed. It is a very worrying development."

Her views are echoed by Patrick O'Connor QC, who has represented defendants in the Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, and other miscarriage of justice cases. O'Connor, a speaker next weekend at another conference on expert evidence, hosted by Cala, says: "It's not that there is an objection to forensic evidence per se but where things go wrong is in the handling of that evidence in court. Very often these cases of so-called expert evidence are not based on science."

One controversial area is ear-print identification. Last January Mark Dallagher was cleared in a retrial of murdering a 94-year-old woman, having made legal history in 1998 when he became the first man to be convicted of murder by ear-print evidence. A jury at Leeds crown court had found him guilty after hearing evidence from Cornelius van der Lugt, a former Dutch policeman, who said that Dallagher, a convicted burglar, had left ear-prints on the woman's window before breaking into her house. Subsequently, DNA analysis of ear-prints left at the murder scene undermined Van der Lugt's expert testimony. Following an appeal and a new police investigation the prosecution decided to offer no evidence against Dallagher. His counsel, James Sturman QC, told the court: "This is another example of the dangers of the police following scientists too closely when the scientists are building a science, not following a science."

Dallagher is not the only person to have been convicted on ear-print evidence. Albert James was found guilty of seven burglaries in 2000, with his ear-prints allegedly found on doors and windows. Ear-print identification has been used to obtain at least another three convictions. The English courts continue to allow such evidence even though it has been widely discredited in mainland Europe and America.

Other controversial forms of expert evidence are also finding their way into the courts. The court of appeal recently considered three appeals concerning lip-reading from video footage. The defence team argued that this was a novel technique whose reliability was uncertain. They said that it should have been ruled inadmissible, or, if allowed, that the judge should have directed the jury on the potential weaknesses of such evidence.

To no avail: the court disagreed, declaring that "lip-reading from a video, like facial mapping, is, in our view, a species of real evidence. [We] are entirely satisfied that lip-reading evidence as to the contents of a videoed conversation is capable of passing the ordinary tests of relevance and reliability and therefore being potentially admissible in evidence." Nevertheless, the court warned "as to its limitations and the concomitant risk of error".

Facial mapping - or "imagery analysis" - has been "repeatedly upheld" as a viable form of expert evidence, according to criminal barrister Henry Blaxland QC. It might be used when there is CCTV footage of, for example, a bank robbery but where the alleged robber's face is obscured. "An expert will then review the video material and identify supposed similarities between the defendant's face and that of the person on film," says Blaxland, adding that, because of the lack of a database and a developed scientific discipline, he has always regarded it as "dangerous." The court of appeal agreed in a case last year, saying, "Unless and until a national database or agreed formula or some other such objective measure is established, this court doubts whether such opinions should ever be expressed by facial imaging or mapping witnesses."

Blaxland agrees with O'Connor that the crucial issue is how expert evidence is used in court. O'Connor says there are three distinct problem areas: "The first is that we have no certifying body for expert witnesses. A lot of so-called 'experts' have no real science qualifications and are not entitled to claim an aura of expertise. Second, we have no test for admissibility, in contrast to the situation in the United States where expert evidence has to be accepted as reliable by the scientific community before it can be used in court. This puts the defence in an impossible position - how do you counter an expert in an entirely new field with your own expert? Third, we have no way of dealing with maverick pronouncements by experts who should know better."

O'Connor believes that there should be procedural barriers to prevent witnesses departing from their witness statements and suddenly introducing prejudicial material. He welcomes the suggestion by a working group of the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health for a pre-trial review in criminal trials, in which experts can establish areas of agreement and disagreement. As O'Connor says, this means of "protection against improvisation" occurs in civil cases, so why not criminal ones too?

Ewen Smith, a partner at the law firm Glaisyers who specialises in criminal law, is encouraged by what he sees as an "increasing caution over experts" in the court of appeal. Nevertheless, be believes the system needs an overhaul: "Trial judges need to stop dubious expert evidence at the first hurdle, or at the very least caution juries as to its possible fallibility. The imbalance in funding also means that the Crown can call in as many experts as it wants at the outset, while the defence faces enormous financial restrictions. The system is flawed."

At least, though, we have yet to reach the wilder shores of expert evidence. US "experts" have come up with "in-custody death syndrome", or "excited delirium", which argues that people who die in police custody are not victims of police brutality but rather of their own cocaine or amphetamine abuse, which can trigger this fatal condition. Then there is brain fingerprinting, whose advocates claim that it determines objectively what information is stored in a person's brain by measuring brainwave responses to relevant words or pictures flashed on a computer screen. A court in Iowa ruled that brain fingerprinting was admissible as scientific evidence after a test showing that the record stored in the brain of a man convicted of murder did not match the crime scene. Only in America?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1314116,00.html

There really needs to be a firmer system in place for dealing with 'expert' testimony and it does look like it is coming.

 

[TheQuixote]

I've bit my tongue when it has come to this thread even though I have posted articles but since the case against Southall I feel that this link may be of interest to anyone interested in MSP:

http://www.portia.org/chapter11/penny.html

I know Penny personally, she is a family friend and I also have a close family member who lost their children via Southall's actions but I can't and shan't go into details as the case is now pending and although my family member was proven and found innocent they are still seeking legal intervention to make contact with their children.

I appreciate that the site may be appear to be biased but I can assure you that Penny did not deserve to be treated the way she and her children did.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Quixote: I hope everything works out OK - that is a sad story - when the law seems incapable of doing the right thing then people have to stand up for what they believe in. If somewhere down the line someone had thought to ask for something like, e.g., evidence then a lot of this could have been spared

----------------
More news - I am suprised more people haven't come forward to get their cases reviewed (but how confident are they in the system now?):

Three request baby death reviews

The Criminal Cases Review Commission has received only three new enquiries from parents saying they were wrongly convicted of killing their children.

The Attorney General set up a review of sudden infant death convictions after Angela Cannings was cleared on appeal of murdering her two baby sons.

It was widely assumed dozens of parents and carers would challenge convictions based on disputed medical evidence.

But with the review nearing completion, the number could well be much smaller.

I have to say I have been astonished that it has taken so long for the first two or three cases to reach us and I have no idea why that is
Commission chairman Professor Graham Zellick

The Commission, which has the power to refer convictions back to the Court of Appeal, identified 28 cases where such an appeal could be made.

So far, just two parents have applied to the Commission to challenge their convictions with one other indicating they probably would.

These applications were only made in the last week, a Commission spokesman said.

It is now trawling its own files for potential miscarriages of justice, and is likely to re-examine a murder conviction from the mid-80s that it had previously refused to consider.

Ms Cannings was convicted of the murder of seven-week-old Jason in June 1991 and 18-week-old Matthew in November 1999 in April 2002, based purely on the opinion of three experts, including the now-discredited paediatrician Professor Roy Meadow.

Initial contact

Commission chairman Professor Graham Zellick told BBC Radio 4 Today programme of his surprise at the length of time taken for the first applications to come through.

"I have to say I have been astonished that it has taken so long for the first two or three cases to reach us and I have no idea why that is," he said.

A Commission spokesman said the two applications received so far related to the death of a baby girl in 2000 and the death of a baby boy in 2001.

A third application was pending after initial contact by a solicitor last week, he added.

'Meadow's law'

Five of the 28 cases identified by the Attorney General are already being looked at by the Commission and include the case of Donna Anthony, given two life sentences in 1998 for murdering her two babies.

These applications were made independently of the review.

One sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder, unless proven otherwise
Professor Roy Meadow

Professor Meadow said there was a 73 million to one chance of two children in the same family dying of cot death.

He became renowned for an observation in a book that became universally known as "Meadow's Law", which stated: "One sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder, unless proven otherwise."

In December 2003 the Court of Appeal decided to overturn Ms Canning's murder conviction.

As a result of her case being overturned, the law was changed so that no-one can be convicted in a criminal case on the testimony of expert witnesses alone, without referring to physical evidence.

And Mrs Cannings' experience led to reviews of cases in which children have been taken into care on the basis of disputed medical evidence.

Ms Cannings' first child, Gemma, also died of cot death in 1989, but no charges were brought in relation to that death.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/3718862.stm

Published: 2004/10/06 07:54:08 GMT

© BBC MMIV

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Munchausen Backlash May Leave Kids at Risk

As Mothers Fight Munchausen Accusations, Experts Fear for Children's Lives

By MARC LALLANILLA

Sept. 20, 2004 — When Sandy Greenhough had to hospitalize one of her three children, the experience was distressing. But the worst was yet to come.

Greenhough was accused of being a "Munchausen mother" who was deliberately causing her 4-year-old son's illness. The accusation, and the resulting legal wranglings, left her family emotionally and financially devastated.

"They make you out to be some kind of monster mom," she said. "That label feels like it's stuck with you for the rest of your life."

But Greenhough, who says her son suffers from several conditions including gastroesophageal reflux disease, was determined to fight back. "I decided that I would no longer play the victim and I would stand up for what I believed," she said. "I knew I was not a monster mom."

Munchausen: Tough Love

Munchausen by proxy describes parents — usually mothers — or other caretakers who intentionally sicken or injure children, then request multiple medical procedures to address the problems they inflict.

The name is derived from Baron von Munchausen, an 18th-century traveler who told grandiose stories of his adventures.

There are a number of different theories regarding the origins of MBP behavior. Some believe the women who sicken their children are seeking attention from medical professionals or affirmation of their roles as good mothers.

But a growing number of accused women are disputing accusations of MBP, claiming allegations of this rare form of abuse have turned into a witch hunt.

They argue that MBP has become a conveniently applied label in cases where doctors can't make a diagnosis, or feel a parent has become too aggressively involved in a child's treatment. In other cases, skeptics say, MBP has been used as a weapon in child custody disputes.

-----------------
To help families facing MBP accusations, Julie Patrick of Byhalia, Miss., founded Mothers Against Munchausen Accusations following the death of her infant son, Philip.

In 1996, officials at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., suspected Patrick of being a Munchausen mother, she said. One month after the Tennessee Department of Children's Services separated her from Philip, he died from causes related to numerous birth defects including gastrointestinal problems.

"I started the MAMA Web site six months after the death of my son. I promised Philip that I wasn't going to let him die in vain. I didn't want his life to be nothing more than a nightmare," she said.

"And it was a way of finding others [accused of MBP] and to know that you're not alone," Patrick said. "There's a feeling of being totally alone when you face this accusation."

When Greenhough was faced with an accusation of MBP, the British Columbia woman turned to MAMA for information and support. The group helped her get in touch with a lawyer experienced in MBP cases. In the end, she was able to keep her family together.

Videotaped Proof of Abuse

But experts warn that MBP is no imaginary phenomenon.

There are an estimated 1,200 newly recognized cases of MBP a year in the United States. In cases where the abuse goes unchecked, children can be permanently disabled or even killed.

Munchausen investigators say there have been cases in which mothers dose children with medications prescribed by several different doctors, intentionally break their children's bones, or spray oven cleaner on the youngsters' skin to induce a severe rash.

One mother was secretly videotaped in her child's hospital room putting nail polish remover in her daughter's feeding tube.

‘A Backlash’

Because of these horrific examples of child abuse, many are concerned about the growing movement to discredit experts in the field and deny the existence of MBP.

"It's a backlash," said Dr. Marc D. Feldman, a psychiatrist and author of Playing Sick? Untangling the Web of Munchausen Syndrome, Munchausen by Proxy, Malingering, and Factitious Disorder.

"Like child abuse in the 1950s, we thought it didn't exist in the U.S.," he said. "People thought these reports [of child abuse] were coming from overzealous doctors. Now we have the very same phenomenon with Munchausen. History's repeating itself."

Experts also fear that some MAMA members are too extreme.

"They bathe themselves in the language of the religious right," said Feldman. "The time for the backlash came, and now it's time for it to go."

Louisa Lasher, a private forensic specialist and co-author of Munchausen by Proxy: Identification, Intervention, and Case Management, has had her own experiences with MAMA.

"MAMA is largely a hate and discontent group, composed largely of those who say they have been falsely accused of MBP," she said. "A main focus of this group appears to be to destroy MBP experts, and to destroy the idea that this kind of maltreatment exists."

But Patrick vehemently denies that MAMA is out to destroy any experts.

A statement on the group's Web site says, "Our mission is to stop the assault on innocent parents from [MBP] allegations and to reveal the ulterior motives of the accusers … and hold accountable any physician who acts as judge and jury."

MAMA's Web site also acknowledges that cases of actual child abuse do exist and should be investigated when real evidence of abuse exists.

Is There a Munchausen Profile?

Even experts acknowledge MBP is a difficult assessment to make.

"There are many misconceptions regarding MBP. One misconception is that MBP is a mental health diagnosis. It is not," said Lasher.

"Another misconception is that there is some kind of profile — or combination of personal characteristics — that can determine whether or not someone is an MBP perpetrator," she said. "There is no such profile."

The American Psychiatric Association lists MBP only in the appendix of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, not in the main body of the manual.

"We refer to it as a form of abuse, not a mental disorder," said Feldman. "There's no test you can do [for MBP]. It requires further study before it's classified as a mental disorder."

Acknowledging Mistakes

Lasher also recognizes that mistakes have been made in confirming cases of MBP. She says one of the inherent difficulties in investigating these cases is their rarity, and cases of MBP require a complex confirmation process.

"MBP maltreatment is a very specialized field," she said. "There are few people in the world, unfortunately, who know how to — and have time to — complete a thorough and objective MBP maltreatment confirmation-disconfirmation process. I am regularly involved in cases where a determination has already been incorrectly made."

Feldman, too, acknowledges there have been false determinations of MBP.

"In 3.5 percent of published cases, the diagnosis of Munchausen was misapplied," he said.

"But that means in 96.5 percent of cases, it was accurately applied."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Living/story?id=147578&page=1

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

A press release

Groundbreaking New Documentary “MaMa/M.A.M.A.” Exposes the Truth About Medical Mystery


New film examines how hundreds of lives are shattered by questionable allegations of Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy.

Hollywood, CA (PRWEB) October 14, 2004 –- Oscar™-nominated, documentary filmmaker Amy Sommer announced the availability of “Mama/M.A.M.A.,” a first-ever documentary investigation that questions the validity of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (“MSbP”), a poorly understood and highly controversial medical disorder. This groundbreaking film examines how three families were shattered by these allegations. The documentary effectively argues that, rather than a mother’s alleged mental illness, in many cases, doctors’ over-medication of infants may likely be the cause of their sickness. The film is now available on DVD at http://www.munchausenmovie.com

MSbP is a bizarre form of supposed child abuse in which a mother is alleged to feign her child’s illness, or even to make her child sick, in order to attract the sympathy and praise of the medical community. The film traces the formation of M.A.M.A., Mothers Against MSbP Accusations, an international support group made up of accused families who support each other via research and an active on-line forum. The filmmakers spent three years closely observing how the lives of three families were disrupted by medical professionals’ allegations and uncovered disturbing questions about the medical profession’s use of this devastating diagnosis.

Producer Sommer and Director Nonny de la Peña, both mothers and accomplished filmmakers, find that the illnesses supposedly caused by over one hundred “Munchausen Mothers,” were in fact, caused by potentially toxic drugs--drugs that were never approved for pediatric use. Additionally, the film traces the origins of the diagnosis and shows how no one, until now, has questioned the dubious science that has led to twenty-five years of mothers and children being torn apart.

“This film powerfully shows that, before we point a finger at a mother, doctors need to fully investigate drug side effects and other possibilities when considering why a child is ill,” said Nonny de la Peña, director, MAMA/M.A.M.A.

“There are so many conflicts of interest in medicine — drug research funding, information about which trials are published — that even common infant conditions can become a lightning rod for MSbP accusations,” added Amy Sommer, producer, MAMA/M.A.M.A.

De la Peña and Sommer previously collaborated on the critically acclaimed, “The Jaundiced Eye.” Their individual credits include “Unconstitutional” and “Waco: The Rules of Engagement,” among others.

Mama/M.A.M.A. runs 100 minutes and retails for .95. For more information, visit http://www.munchausenmovie.com

---------------
Editors’ note: Director Nonny de la Peña and producer Amy Sommer are available for interviews, live appearances, and Internet chats. Ms. De la Peña is fluent in Spanish as well as English. For a review copy of the film, contact the agency above.

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/10/emw167950.htm

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Charges against mother in abuse case sent to grand jury

By MICHELLE WASHINGTON, The Virginian-Pilot
© October 27, 2004 | Last updated 10:13 PM Oct. 26

NORFOLK — Hospital staff were suspicious of a mother’s complaints about her son’s illness, so they installed a hidden camera in the boy’s room.

The security guard watching the television monitor rushed to action after seeing the woman appear to smother the toddler. As security supervisor at the Children’s Hospital of The King’s Daughters, Stanley Moses helped set up a hidden camera in Room 715. The camera helped him investigate a possible case of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, in which a parent complains of or causes sickness in a child to get attention for himself.

During a hearing in Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court on Tuesday, Moses testified that as he watched the television monitor on Aug. 23 he saw the boy’s feet kicking wildly as the woman held him on her lap. She held the child in an awkward position, he said, with her hand over his mouth and nose. Moses picked up the phone to call the nurses’ station for that floor.

Get in there now, he said.

Inga Cain, a nurse at the hospital, said she startled the woman when she came into the room. The boy dangled limply in her arms, Cain testified. He wasn’t breathing.

Hospital staff revived the boy, who was between 1 and 2 years old. Police talked to the mother, Kendra Kirton.

Kirton told Investigator Judy Bennett that her son had “spells” in which he stopped breathing.

When Bennett told Kirton they had seen video that showed her smothering her son, Kirton admitted she did the same thing in the hospital’s emergency room three days earlier to get the boy admitted. She said she had caused him to stop breathing another time in Virginia Beach. And she said she had suffocated the boy at least six times while she lived in Florida, when she was “trying to get doctors to figure out what was going on with the baby,” Bennett said.

Police charged Kirton, 27, with two counts of felony child abuse. At the time of her arrest, police said the boy was turned over to Child Protective Services workers in Virginia Beach.

On Tuesday, Judge Joseph P. Massey found probable cause to send the cases to a grand jury next month.

Kirton remains in jail without bond.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=77267&ran=50801

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Mother Pleads Guilty, But Mentally Ill

By CHAUNCEY ROSS, Gazette Staff Writer November 05, 2004


An Indiana mother who admitted giving her 4-year-old son near-fatal doses of Benadryl and Tylenol last year has been recommended for a sentence of probation under terms of a plea bargain approved Thursday in the Indiana County Court.
Catherine Gerlesky, 32, of 957 Philadelphia St., pleaded guilty but mentally ill to one count of aggravated assault. The charge is a second-degree felony punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison and a ,000 fine. In a plea agreement, prosecutors agreed not to challenge a psychiatrist's recommendation that Gerlesky not be imprisoned or institutionalized.

Gerlesky entered the plea before Judge Gregory Olson.

According to charges filed by state police, Gerlesky's child was admitted to Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh on June 11, 2003, for treatment of "extremely toxic levels" of Benadryl in his system. After the boy's condition worsened on June 17, toxicology tests revealed Tylenol in his system at a level 10 times the normal dosage, police wrote. Medical reports described the drug levels as life-threatening.

Doctors gave no Tylenol to the child, according to police, and Gerlesky was the only non-medical person who had contact with him while he was in the hospital. Gerlesky denied giving the drugs to the boy.

After studying the child's medical history, Dr. Sandra Herr of Children's Hospital told investigators that she believed Gerlesky had Munchausen's syndrome by proxy (MBP).

"MBP is a form of child abuse in which the caregiver, usually the mother, causes, exaggerates and/or falsely reports symptoms in the child," Herr told police. "In my opinion and experience, this child is a grave risk for ongoing illness or death if returned to the care of his mother."

Pittsburgh psychiatrist Dr. Christine Martone, who examined Gerlesky at the request of defense attorney Ryan Fritz, disagreed with the diagnosis of MBP.

Martone, of St. Francis Medical Center, concluded Gerlesky suffers from major depressive disorder, learning disorder and borderline intellectual functioning. Martone found Gerlesky "could not understand the wrongfulness of her conduct or conform her behavior to the norms of law at the time of the offense," Fritz wrote in a notice to the court, saying he intended to raise a defense of insanity or mental infirmity.

In the plea agreement, prosecutors dropped a second count of aggravated assault and two counts each of child-welfare endangerment, simple assault and recklessly endangering another person.

Gerlesky is charged, in the remaining count, of "administering Benadryl, a deadly weapon in that it caused bodily injury, to her son," Assistant District Attorney Geoffrey Kugler told Judge Olson.

"The commonwealth has agreed to remain silent at the time of sentencing," Fritz said.

Gerlesky is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 31 in Olson's court.


------------------
©Indiana Printing & Publishing Co. 2004

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Mother jailed for murder of son is cleared

By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent

10 November 2004

A mother convicted of murdering her four-month-old son after a trial at which the discredited paediatrician Sir Roy Meadow gave evidence was cleared yesterday at a retrial.

Margaret Smith, 39, collapsed in court after the retrial jury found her not guilty of smothering her baby, Keith, at their home in Hull, in 1994.

The jury at Newcastle Crown Court was not told that this was a retrial and that the mother of nine children had been convicted of Keith's murder in 2002, but cleared of killing her five-month-old daughter, Kelly, who died in 1992. It was also revealed after the retrial that Mrs Smith had been jailed for stabbing her first husband to death.

Her defence team won an appeal in Keith's case after showing that the evidence given by Sir Roy, at the original trial was prejudicial and should have been inadmissible. It was the latest in a string of cases involving evidence from Sir Roy in which the original conviction was overturned.

Mrs Smith, from a family of travellers originally from Ayrshire in Scotland, was accused by a seven-year-old girl of smothering her son. The girl claimed she saw Mrs Smith put a pillow over his face to stop him crying at the family home in St John's Grove, Hull, in September 1994.

She told police in 2000 that when she asked what Mrs Smith was doing, the mother said she was feeding the baby.

But the jury heard there were "inconsistencies" in the girl's account. She claimed she was away from school on the day Keith died, but a school register showed she was present. Mrs Smith did not give evidence.

A post-mortem examination showed cot death was the most likely cause of death, as had happened two years previously with her daughter Kelly.

The jury heard that the family home was filthy and a neighbour told the court that Mrs Smith referred to Keith as "it". The mother told police she fed her baby "chips, mash, minced beef and peas". On the day his son was found dead, the defendant's husband, also called Keith, did not go straight to the hospital. Sergeant Keith Baskill told the jury: "Mr Smith said he wanted to go to the post office to cash the child allowance because he wanted to go drinking with his friends that afternoon."

At the hearing into baby Keith's death in Leeds, Sir Roy said the killing of a baby by its parents was often preceded by a trip to hospital during which a parent claimed the infant had a serious illness.

The original trial was told Mrs Smith took her son to hospital some months before. But her defence team successfully argued that Sir Roy's evidence should not have been heard.

The retrial jury was not told that Mrs Smith and her second husband were jailed for six years for stabbing her first husband to death in 1995. Robert Brannan, 53, was discovered in his bath with 51 stab wounds. The couple blamed each other and were cleared of murder at York Crown Court but jailed for six years for manslaughter.

Mrs Smith's solicitor, Richard Thompson, said: "During the course of this trial [Mrs Smith] has been under enormous pressure and she will just want to get back to her husband and put her life back together after three and a half years in prison."

Yesterday's verdict follows successful appeals by mothers convicted of killing their children on the basis of Sir Roy'stheory of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. The theory espouses that some mothers harm their children to draw attention to themselves. More than 300 cases in which parents were convicted of killing their babies are being reviewed.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=581294

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Is mother sick, or is it the system?

Woman accused of concocting children's illness

Wednesday, November 10, 2004
By Karen Kane, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Is it a case of abusive parents, or parents abused by the system?

Child welfare authorities in Butler County took emergency custody of three children in September, claiming their mother has a rare disorder in which she concocts illnesses for the children and subjects them to unnecessary or dangerous medical procedures.

The parents contend that they are the victims of miscommunication among medical experts and ignorance in the legal community.

The case pits Butler County Children and Youth Services against 30-year-old Melissa Anne "Mannie" Taimuty-Loomis and her husband, Ron Taimuty-Loomis, 31, of Adams. The couple have been married eight years and are the parents of four children, one of whom died on Jan. 24, 2001.

CYS contends that Mannie Taimuty-Loomis is afflicted with Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy and that she abused her three children, ages 7, 5, and 20 months, by concocting a set of medical symptoms that resulted in invasive medical procedures for two of the children and put at risk the health of all three. State police in Butler are investigating the abuse allegations.

The Taimuty-Loomises say two of their three living children suffer with a misunderstood and difficult to diagnose mitochondrial disease and their deceased son, Jonah, also likely suffered the effects of it.

Jonah died one week shy of his third birthday. He was born with multiple medical problems and the couple sued Magee-Womens Hospital. A settlement was reached but all parties in the case have agreed not to discuss it.

"We are the victims of doctors that don't talk to each other and [caseworkers] who don't have the knowledge to understand this disease," said Mannie Taimuty-Loomis, a stay-at-home mother who runs a nonprofit foundation she said is dedicated to supporting families with chronically ill children. The foundation, named for her deceased son, is called Jonah and the Whale Foundation.

Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy is a mental or personality disorder in which a parent, usually the mother, intentionally feigns or produces symptoms of illness in a child.

In mitochondrial disease, the part of a cell responsible for energy production fails to work properly. It can affect any organ system from the brain to the heart to the eyes, produce symptoms ranging from poor growth to muscle weakness to developmental delays, be inherited or acquired and has no known cure. It also is difficult to diagnose.

According to CYS solicitor Dan Houlihan, the case began late this summer with a tip to the agency from a third-year medical resident who questioned whether 7-year-old Ezra and 20-month-old Symia were receiving necessary medical treatments. Five-year-old Adia was not under treatment.

After a meeting with doctors at Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh, CYS caseworkers put the children into emergency foster care on Sept. 2.

At a hearing five days later, Juvenile Court Master Joe Brydon agreed to return the children to the parents, provided they had them evaluated by doctors at the Cleveland Clinic. There had been conflicting medical testimony between doctors at Childrens and Mercy hospitals and Brydon wanted an objective third party.

At that point, Ezra and Symia had feeding tubes and mainline intravenous units in their chests. Both were equipped with backpacks containing pumps that fed them pain medication.

Houlihan said that on Sept. 17, Cleveland Clinic determined all three children were healthy and CYS seized custody again. The children currently are in the care of a foster family and the feeding tubes and IVs have been removed.

Attorneys Sue Lope and Dave Montgomery of Butler, the children's legal guardians, said yesterday all three appeared to be doing well.

An adjudication hearing was to have begun yesterday but was delayed. Houlihan asked the court to require separate legal counsel for each parent, saying Mannie Taimuty-Loomis has moved out of the family home to an apartment in Butler and that Ron will agree to restrict contact between his wife and children in exchange for full custody of his children.

Ron Taimuty-Loomis said in an interview that the split is part of their legal strategy to reunite their children with at least one parent and not an indication of a fracture in the family.

"They think I've got [Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy] so we thought if I left, maybe Ron could be reunited with the children," Mannie said in an interview yesterday.

Ron Taimuty-Loomis, who works for Traco in Cranberry and is a student at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, said yesterday his children appeared to be thriving physically.

"We're glad they're doing better but that fact is making it harder for us to get them back," he said, acknowledging the contention by CYS officials that the invasive medical treatments were unnecessary.

Mannie Taimuty-Loomis said she relied on medical experts who advised treatments for the children. "It's not like I put them on the operating table and did it myself," she said.

Houlihan said, however, that testimony will be presented that shows that the invasive procedures were done based on information given by the children's mother.

"Stay tuned," he said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04315/409549.stm

 

[nikoteen1]

After all the years of suffering both on my part, and on that of my friends and family, something happened 2 weeks ago that gave me the biggest kick up the backside i could ever have hoped for.

all the councelling in the world could not match the effect that this has had on me.....

i need to give a little background so as to explain a little clearer...

13 years ago myself my 2 sons and my wife moved home and had to register with a new doctor, he checked my youngest son who was 2 at the time and asked how long he had had a heart murmur, we were not aware that he had a murmur at all.

that afternoon we were at @@@@@@@ childrens hospital being told that our son had a rare heart condition called hyperthropic cardiomyopathy, which causes the muscle in the heart to thicken .

we were devastated when the consultant mentioned that until only a few years before it had been called sudden death syndrome.

over the years he has coped really well, he takes his medication, and the regular hospital visits are all taken in his stride, even when he had a pacemaker fitted a few years ago he seemed more worried about the fact that there was a telly in the room.


2 weeks ago i was working about 3 hours away from home and had just arrived when i got a phone call. "hello this is @@@@@@@ high school can you come straight away your son has collapsed in the car park, we have called an ambulance".

he had always been told that at all costs he must avoid competitive sports, extreme heat,stress and sudden activity, .....
he forgot all that on the day when he paniced that he was going to miss the coach for the school trip, and started sprinting.
he blacked out in mid sprint and fell face first onto the carpark.
he lost some teeth and grazed most of his face.


now as i sped home i had no idea what had happened to him and all sorts of things flashed through my mind, i must have played it through in my head about a dozen times, what would happen as i arrived at hospital ? " its ok he just fainted" or "would you just come into this room sir a doctor will come and talk to you".
(i had that when my wife died)

i finally arrived and rushed in to see him, he was battered and bruised and felt sick as a dog but he was ok.

i spent the rest of the morning trying to explain about his pacemaker being quite rare and not actually working like most pace makers because they couldnt figure out why,(according to the ECG) his heart stopped beating every 60 beats ( it doesnt its the pacemaker stopping to have a listen to what the hearts doing).

we spent 3 days in all at our local hopital and were taken by ambulance to @@@@@@@@ childrens hospital to get a more detailed view of what his heart had been up to.

hes got the all clear now on his heart ,well as all clear as it was before ! and hes healing up nicely.


now the crux.. seeing my son laying there in a hospital bed not knowing if hes about to have a heart attack or whatever, seeing him lay there in so much pain and being so brave,
laying in a bed that i tried so hard to get into in the past without thought for how people who cared for me felt.

how could i be so stupid, he didnt want to be there, i didnt want him to be there........ how could i want to have been there in the past.



i feel like a new person.!!!

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

nikoteen: Glad to hear he is OK.

It is often things like that which can help give us a different perspective on things.

 

[Leaferne]

What Emps said.

:likee:

 

[lemonpie3]

Nikoteen - wow :grouphug:

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Mother Allegedly Attempts To Poison Baby With Tylenol

Woman Ordered To Undergo Psychiatric Evaluation

POSTED: 8:48 pm EST November 11, 2004
UPDATED: 9:20 pm EST November 11, 2004

A mother of a 1-year-old girl is being held at Macomb County Jail after she allegedly attempted to poison the child.

The Fraser woman (pictured, left) was charged with first-degree child abuse after her live-in boyfriend allegedly caught her in the act of pouring a 4-ounce bottle of children's liquid Tylenol down the girl's throat.

"He believed she was trying to pour it down her throat, the whole bottle. He stopped her. He put the baby down. The baby was crying like she was sick," said Lt. Dan Kolke, of the Fraser Police Department.

Local 4 learned the recommended dosage of Tylenol for younger children is one teaspoon. The package warns that an overdose can cause serious health problems.

Authorities are now working to determine if the woman was intentionally trying to harm the girl.

Local 4 spoke with Dr. Patricia Siegel, of Children's Hospital, an expert on Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy (MSP). MSP is a parenting disorder where parents, usually the mother, fabricate symptoms in their children, thus subjecting them to unnecessary medical tests and/or surgical procedures, according to the SIDS Network Web site.

"We see it quite frequently," said Siegel. "They use illness in their child to demonstrate love."

If the Fraser woman is able to post bond, the court has ordered her to stay away from the child. She is also scheduled to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

The 1-year-old was checked out by doctors, but was expected to be OK. She's been placed in foster care, Local 4 reported.

--------------
Copyright 2004 by ClickOnDetroit.com.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/3912825/detail.html

 

[RainyOcean]

The Fraser woman (pictured, left) was charged with first-degree child abuse after her live-in boyfriend allegedly caught her in the act of pouring a 4-ounce bottle of children's liquid Tylenol down the girl's throat.

So, without thinking I look left and see a drawing of a guy with a beard. Then I think about how inapropriate it is for me to be amused at something while reading this article.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome

Sun Nov 28, 7:00 PM ET


KidsHealth.org

* By the time she was 8 years old, J.B. had been hospitalized 200 times and had undergone more than 40 operations, including the removal of most of her intestines.
* K.C., a 2-year-old boy, was hospitalized more than 20 times due to complications from asthma, severe pneumonia, mysterious infections, and sudden fevers. His doctors were baffled and unable to determine the cause of these illnesses.
* In a family with five children, one after another died of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).



What do these seemingly unrelated cases have in common? All were the result of Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (MBPS), or Factitious Disorder by Proxy, as it is listed in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). This condition involves the exaggeration or fabrication of illnesses or symptoms by a primary caretaker. J.B.'s medical history was traced to her mother, who manufactured her daughter's illnesses. Similarly, when K.C. was thought to have AIDS (news - web sites), he eventually complained to his mother's friend that his thigh was sore because "Mommy gave me shots." And 23 years after the five babies in one family died, it was determined that SIDS was not the cause, but murder.

What Is MBPS?

In MBPS, an individual - usually a mother - deliberately makes another person (most often an infant or toddler) sick or convinces others that the person is sick. She misleads others into thinking that her child has medical problems by lying and reporting fictitious episodes. She may exaggerate, fabricate, or induce symptoms. As a result, doctors usually order tests, try different types of medications, and may even hospitalize the child or perform surgery to determine the cause.

Typically, the mother knows that these procedures are not needed, but she feels satisfied when she has the attention and sympathy of doctors, nurses, and others who come into contact with her and her child. Because she appears to be so caring and attentive, often no one suspects her. It's not unusual for medical personnel to overlook the possibility of MBPS because it goes against the belief that a mother would never deliberately hurt her child.

One of the most harmful forms of child abuse in more extreme cases, MBPS was named for Baron von Munchausen, an 18th-century German dignitary known for telling outlandish stories. A perplexing aspect of the syndrome is the ability of the mother to fool and manipulate doctors. Because it can take so long for doctors to identify the syndrome, some children may die as a result of MBPS without a diagnosis being made.

If a doctor or health care provider suspects MBPS, he would look for signs and symptoms of the disorder, which include:

* a child who has multiple medical problems that do not respond to treatment or that follow a persistent and puzzling course
* physical or laboratory findings that are highly unusual, discrepant with the child's medical history, or physically or clinically impossible
* acute symptoms that tend to cease when the perpetrator is absent
* a parent or caregiver who is not reassured by "good news" when test results find no medical problems, but continues to believe that the child is ill
* a parent or caregiver who appears to be medically knowledgeable or fascinated with medical details or appears to enjoy the hospital environment
* a parent or caregiver who is unusually calm in the face of serious difficulties in her child's health
* a parent or caregiver who is highly supportive and encouraging of the doctor, or one who is angry and demands further intervention, more procedures, second opinions, or transfers to more sophisticated facilities

It's important to remember that MBPS is a relatively uncommon disorder. More often than not, a child with a mesmerizing medical history or frequent hospital visits does have an underlying medical condition that has eluded the health care team. MBPS may be suspected in some of these cases, but that does not mean it is the actual diagnosis.

What Causes MBPS?

Scientific studies have been unable to establish a clear psychological profile of the people who perpetrate this abuse. In some cases, the mothers themselves were abused, both physically and sexually, as children. Other theories say that MBPS is a cry for help on the part of the mothers, who may be experiencing anxiety or depression or have feelings of inadequacy as parents of young children. Some mothers may feel a sense of acknowledgement when their child's doctor confirms their parenting skills.

The suspected parent may have symptoms similar to her child's own medical problems or an illness history that is puzzling and unusual. She frequently has an emotionally distant relationship with her spouse, and the spouse often fails to visit the seriously ill child or have contact with doctors. Lastly, the parent has a great need for recognition of her care-taking abilities.

"There are various theories, but most boil down to a need for attention, especially from health care personnel. Mothers may have come from families in which sickness was a way to get love. Their own needs overwhelm their ability to see the child as a person with feelings and rights. Perhaps they were not treated as a person with feelings and rights when they were children. Anger may be involved, either at the child or toward the people who are manipulated by the behavior. They may be seeking help, or they may vicariously enjoy the attention that the sick child gets," explains Mary Sheridan, PhD, ACSW, a professor of social work in the division of arts and sciences at Hawaii Pacific University.

Source

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

I've rather lead this thread off down a MSbP line but here is a sotry about someone with Munchies (although it doesn't sound too like it from the report):

Station menace banned

Dec 2 2004

By James Cartledge, Evening Mail


A man has been banned from every railway station in the West Midlands after bringing chaos and terror to thousands of passengers.

Rail services were brought to a stop when Stephen Lawton dashed into a tunnel at New Street Station claiming to have drunk eight pints of lager and overdosed on 20 paracetamol tablets.

Birmingham Magistrates Court heard how Lawton, as a young boy, had been involved in a railway drama when he fell out of a moving train and was dramatically rescued by his dad, who dived onto the tracks to save him.

Lawton, 56, of Redditch Road, Kings Norton, was yesterday banned from the West Midlands� rail network after admitting obstructing the railway around 6.15pm on June 24.

He caused more than 24 hours worth of delays and cost Network Rail, which is responsible for the track, �106,500 in compensation to train firms.

Magistrates were was told his actions may have stemmed from a brain injury suffered when he fell from a 45mph train, aged three, in August 1952.

Chris Gibbons, prosecuting, said: �All trains were stopped. Mr Lawton said he wanted to kill himself by jumping in front of a train.

�Services were suspended for 15 minutes. This had a knock-on effect of causing 1,500 minutes of delays on the network. The total cost to Network Rail was �106,500.�

Kevin Goode, defending, revealed Lawton�s father Frank saved his life when he dived to rescue his son as he fell from a train on a journey from Liverpool to Birmingham.

Magistrates imposed a two year anti-social behaviour order which banned Lawton from railway stations and trains without written permission to travel from British Transport Police.

He was also banned from drinking alcohol and causing � harassment, alarm or distress� to anyone within a 100 metres of a station or train. Lawton, who has been diagnosed with Munchausen�s Syndrome, must also carry out 200 hours of community service.

Source

And yeh the encoding seems jiggered in FireFox.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Mom seeking attention put baby at risk, officials say

By Tracy Dell'Angela
Tribune staff reporter
Published December 23, 2004

Stacey Vallarta rushed her 4-month-old son to doctors for 10 emergency visits in 13 weeks this fall. The doctors ordered blood tests and inserted catheters, but could never find anything wrong with the otherwise thriving infant.

These unexplained emergencies might have been chalked up as overreactions by a doting mom. But when investigators who knew Vallarta's history with an older son discovered she had a new baby, the pattern suggested grave danger, according to court documents.

Nearly five years ago, a Will County Juvenile Court judge ruled that Vallarta of Joliet had systematically caused the debilitating illness of another son--a preschooler who spent so much time in the hospital, subjected to painful tests and surgeries, that his medical care cost more than $1.3 million.

The diagnosis was Munchausen syndrome by proxy, a severe and sustained form of child abuse in which a parent--almost always a mother--fakes or induces illness in a child to gain attention for herself. Vallarta permanently lost custody of that boy and his older brother, who were adopted by their maternal grandparents.

Now Vallarta's baby is in the protective custody of the Department of Children and Family Services--a case triggered this month by a caseworker responding to a report of an argument in a hospital. The fact that Vallarta is back in court reflects what experts say is a frightening pattern of recidivism in Munchausen abuse.

Will County Judge Rodney Lechwar ordered the baby taken away from Vallarta on Dec. 2 after a brief hearing. A juvenile court hearing on the neglect allegations is set for Feb. 15. No criminal charges have been filed.

The baby is living with his father, a Chicago police officer who had a brief relationship with Vallarta, but who said he knew nothing about Vallarta's history with her older sons. Steve Coyne said Wednesday he is seeking permanent custody of his son.

Woman denies charges

Vallarta, 31, told the Tribune Wednesday she has never harmed her sons and will fight to regain custody of the baby.

"These allegations are outrageous," Vallarta said. "They keep bringing up the Munchausen thing ... but they never found anything. Yeah, I'm way overprotective. But all I did was love my kids."

Will County State's Atty. Tina Brault said she doesn't know yet whether Vallarta mistreated the baby because the investigation is just starting.

But Brault said that to recommend permanent revocation of custody, the state needs to establish only "risk of harm," based on Vallarta's history and the new pattern of doctor's visits.

"I could prove the [neglect] case now just based on her past," Brault said. "In the first case, we were more reactive. Now, we can be more proactive. We can put these things together before bad things happen."

Brault first prosecuted Vallarta after doctors at Loyola Medical Center in Maywood reported her in 1999 for poisoning her son, then 3, with ipecac, a medicine used to induce vomiting.

Brault said she also wanted to pursue a criminal abuse case against Vallarta, but her supervisor decided against it.

Munchausen--identified in 1977 by a British pediatrician and named after an 18th Century baron who was an inveterate liar--remains a rare and complicated illness to diagnose. Many doctors are loathe to diagnose it, in part because the mothers appear so likable and devoted to their children, but also because it highlights the doctors' inadvertent role in the abuse: ordering invasive tests and performing unnecessary surgeries.

Vallarta's public defenders argued the boy's illnesses were real. But they could not explain why the boy's condition improved so dramatically after he left his mother's home.

Drastic improvement

In 1999, the boy was so sick he was being fed through a stomach tube. Vallarta shopped for coffins at a Joliet funeral home.

By the time Vallarta went to trial in 2000, the child was thriving in his grandparents' care, eating normally, gaining weight and not taking any medicines. The boy now is a healthy, active 8-year-old, authorities said.

The problem with abuse in Munchausen by proxy cases, experts say, is that the mothers rarely admit wrongdoing and often repeat the offense, even when it's likely they will get caught.

"Recidivism is very common, and it has everything to do with the dynamics of the disorder. It's almost a compulsion--not dissimilar to what a psychopath does," said Herbert Schreier, an author and psychiatrist at Children's Hospital in Oakland.

In this case, the doctors and investigators who knew Vallarta's history and understood that risk did not know she had a new baby. Her new doctors knew nothing of her history.

The two stories came together in late November, when Vallarta drove her infant 35 miles from home to Hope Children's Hospital in Oak Lawn.

The baby's father, Steve Coyne, lived in the neighborhood. Vallarta asked him to meet her there because their son was throwing up again. The doctor ordered tests, including an ultrasound and urine and blood samples, but the results showed nothing.

Coyne said he had grown so suspicious of the frequent doctors' visits that he mentioned Munchausen by proxy to pediatricians earlier.

"I mentioned it to every doctor I saw, and they would tell me it's very hard to prove and they'll keep an eye on it," said Coyne, who learned of the syndrome from a relative who is a nurse.

But it wasn't those suspicions that triggered a call to child protection workers. It was an argument Coyne had with Vallarta about Thanksgiving visitation.

The argument prompted the hospital social worker to ask the couple some questions. Uneasy about Vallarta's answers, the social worker called a DCFS hot line to see whether there were red flags in the family's background.

The hot line worker who handled the call saw Vallarta's 2000 case on a computer record, including the finding that Vallarta had poisoned her son.

The DCFS worker filed a report and prosecutors were notified. Within a day, the baby had been taken from Vallarta's home and placed temporarily in foster care until the baby's father and his girlfriend could be screened by DCFS.

Things `didn't add up'

Cradling his 16-pound son in his arms at his Southwest Side home Wednesday, Coyne said he was shocked when he read the details of Vallarta's first case, because the pattern was similar what was happening to his boy.

Every week or so Vallarta would call with some new medical emergency--fever, diarrhea, vomiting--that required a trip to the doctor's office, hospital and even three trips to a chiropractor.

"A lot of things just didn't add up, and now it all makes sense," said Coyne, 33.

Vallarta blames the arguments with Coyne for her recent troubles. She said the two often disagreed about their son's care, and she denies she took him to the doctor too often.

Vallarta, who has worked on and off as a waitress, said she's changed. She is more religious, has had counseling and is devoted to her baby.

"I didn't do anything to deserve what I'm getting. It's like I'm guilty until I'm proven more guilty," she said. "I won't even be allowed to give him a Christmas present. I will fight for him until the day I die. All I know is I love my son more than anything and he belongs to me."

----------------------
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

Source

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Posted on Fri, Jan. 07, 2005


Mother admits she harmed daughter


PUBLIC SAFETY: A Duluth woman pleads guilty to assault in a rare county case of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy.

BY MARK STODGHILL

NEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

A Duluth woman, accused of making her 6-year-old daughter a victim of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, admitted Thursday that she inflicted great bodily harm upon the girl.

Kathleen Marie Gaughan, 35, whose last name was Peterson when she was charged last year, pleaded guilty to first-degree assault of her daughter.

Gaughan admitted that she purposely gave her daughter the unprescribed antidepressant amitriptyline on more than one occasion in February and March 2001.

Dr. Carolyn Levitt, director of Midwest Children's Resource Center in St. Paul, had reviewed the medical records of Gaughan's daughter from July 1996 to March 2001 and concluded that the girl was a long-term victim of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy at the hands of her mother.

It's believed to be the first such case charged in St. Louis County.

Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy is a disorder in which a parent, usually the mother, fabricates symptoms in their children. Some psychiatrists believe that this is an attention-seeking behavior. The child is subjected to unnecessary medical tests and/or surgical procedures. In some cases, the parents also inflict injury or kill their children in order to draw a doctor's attention.

Under terms of a plea agreement between Assistant St. Louis County Attorney Leslie Beiers and defense attorney Art Albertson, Gaughan will have an 86-month prison sentence stayed for 20 years of probation.

As conditions of her probation, Gaughan must undergo a psychological evaluation, participate in a female offender program as determined by Arrowhead Regional Corrections and have no responsibility to care for any minor except for her 13-year-old son, who is under the protective supervision of St. Louis County Social Services.

"I'm pleased that the matter has been concluded with a plea to first-degree assault and that she's taken responsibility for her actions," prosecutor Beiers said. "It looks like we'll have a very long period of time to supervise her and protect children."

The victim, now 10, is in the custody of her father.

"It's accurate to say that she's absolutely doing wonderful," her father, Rob Scharp, said Thursday. He declined further comment.

The victim was born in December 1994. She was described in medical records as "normal developmentally and quite bright." She started experiencing seizures in March 1999 and was repeatedly hospitalized.

The criminal complaint said that her physical and cognitive abilities began to decline and she became nearly totally dependent on others for care and feeding.

Levitt determined that Gaughan deprived her daughter of a normal early childhood and destroyed her chance for normal behavior and cognitive development.

In February 2001, the girl was admitted to a hospital in critical condition with a potentially fatal heart problem.

In March 2001, the girl was again admitted to a hospital for recurrent seizures. Her treating physician suspected possible poisoning and conducted a toxicology screening. Tests showed a large amount of the antidepressants amitriptyline and nortriptyline in her system. The drugs were not prescribed.

Duluth police investigators collected a hair sample from the girl and sent it to National Medical Services in Willow Grove, Pa. A forensic scientist there confirmed the drugs found in the toxicology screening.

Gaughan was not required to tell Judge John T. Oswald why she did what she did. For the court to accept her guilty plea, she only had to admit that she purposely provided the unprescribed medication to her daughter and that she knew it was wrong to do so.

She will have the opportunity to address the court at her sentencing next month.

"It's a very, very, very complicated case," Albertson said after the plea hearing. "As far as that theory (Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy) is concerned, there was evidence for and against it. We were able to work it out and avoid having to spend three or four weeks in trial over that issue."

The defense attorney said Gaughan didn't attempt to hurt her daughter to draw attention to herself, but he declined to offer an explanation for her actions.

Gaughan "is very, very upset and remorseful. It's really hit her recently," Albertson said.

Source

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

News Released: January 08, 2005

GROUNDBREAKING NEW DOCUMENTARY
“MAMA/M.A.M.A.” EXPOSES THE TRUTH ABOUT MEDICAL MYSTERY

(PRLEAP.COM) Oscar™-nominated, documentary filmmaker Amy Sommer, announces the availability of “Mama/M.A.M.A.”, a first-ever documentary investigation that questions the validity of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (“MSbP”), a poorly understood and highly controversial medical disorder. This groundbreaking film examines how three families were shattered by these allegations. The documentary effectively argues that, rather than a mother’s alleged mental illness, in many cases, doctors’ over-medication of infants may likely be the cause of their sickness. The film is now available on DVD at www.munchausenmovie.com.

MSbP is a bizarre form of supposed child abuse in which a mother is alleged to feign her child’s illness, or even to make her child sick, in order to attract the sympathy and praise of the medical community. The film traces the formation of M.A.M.A., Mothers Against MSbP Accusations, an international support group made up of accused families who support each other via research and an active on-line forum. The filmmakers spent three years closely observing how the lives of three families were disrupted by medical professionals’ allegations and uncovered disturbing questions about the medical profession’s use of this devastating diagnosis.

Producer Sommer and Director Nonny de la Peña, both mothers and accomplished filmmakers, find that the illnesses supposedly caused by over one hundred “Munchausen Mothers,” were in fact, caused by potentially toxic drugs —drugs that were never approved for pediatric use. Additionally, the film traces the origins of the diagnosis and shows how no one, until now, has questioned the dubious science that has led to twenty-five years of mothers and children being torn apart.

“This film powerfully shows that, before we point a finger at a mother, doctors need to fully investigate drug side effects and other possibilities when considering why a child is ill,” said Nonny de la Peña, director, MAMA/M.A.M.A.

“There are so many conflicts of interest in medicine — drug research funding, information about which trials are published — that even common infant conditions can become a lightning rod for MSbP accusations,” added Amy Sommer, producer, MAMA/M.A.M.A.

De la Peña and Sommer previously collaborated on the critically acclaimed, “The Jaundiced Eye.” Their individual credits include “Unconstitutional” and “Waco: The Rules of Engagement,” among others.


Mama/M.A.M.A. runs 100 minutes and retails for $19.95. For more information, visit www.munchausenmovie.com.


Editors’ note: Director Nonny de la Peña and producer Amy Sommer are available for interviews, live appearances, and Internet chats. Ms. De la Peña is fluent in Spanish as well as English. Review copies of the film are available via the above contact.

Source

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

January 13, 2005

The old boys' club and its inexpert experts can still hold juries in thrall

Camilla Cavendish

The GMC has still not set a date to consider if Meadow should be accused of misconduct Until courts demand more of experts, more miscarriages of justice could occur

SO ANGELA CANNINGS is denied the compensation that her wrongful imprisonment cries out for, while Professor Sir Roy Meadow, who convinced a jury that she had smothered her cot-death babies, has still not even been censured by the General Medical Council (GMC). Welcome to 21st-century Britain. The club is intact; the awe of gongs prevails, justice moves at the pace of the oldest member; and the lawyers are looking for the next medical “expert” they can count on to bring in the fees.

It is almost two years since the solicitor Sally Clark was freed by the Court of Appeal, which found Professor Meadow’s evidence to have been “grossly misleading”. It is a year and a half since Trupti Patel was cleared of murdering her three babies, prompting a review of other cases involving Meadow’s notorious diagnosis of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP). A preliminary GMC hearing has grudgingly found that “there is a case to answer”. But it has not yet set a date to consider whether Professor Meadow should be accused of serious professional misconduct. The GMC says that it usually takes between 15 and 18 months to mount such a hearing. Exactly how busy are these people? How long is the backlog of doctors accused of ruining women’s lives?

Home Office bureaucrats seem to think that they do not even owe an explanation of their refusal to compensate a woman who spent 18 months in jail on false charges being treated as the vilest of the vile, who lost her house and almost lost her surviving daughter to the social services. She escaped, like Mrs Clark and Mrs Patel, only through sheer determination. Few mothers can imagine marshalling such strength at a time of such unutterable grief. Mrs Clark looks unlikely ever to recover fully from her ordeal in prison. Yet it was she and her husband who first forced intelligent judges to see what they should have spotted long before: that the science behind Professor Meadow’s claims was ropy to say the least. When challenged to produce his research papers to justify his original findings on MSBP, he claimed to have destroyed them.

Mrs Clark received compensation because she had exhausted all legal remedies by the time she was finally freed. Mrs Cannings was freed on her first appeal, which does not technically merit compensation. Yet it is quite clear that the Home Secretary can make an ex gratia payment in exceptional circumstances and it would be hard to find a more exceptional case.

The fact that a few heroic women and their devoted lawyers have successfully challenged conventional wisdom does not mean that the system is now working fine. If it seems extraordinary that courts were so gullible for so long, it is perhaps because Professor Meadow was suggesting something that they wanted to believe: that they were part of a heroic crusade to jail evil mothers. His credentials as a doctor, a professor and a knight of the realm, also helped to disguise his fatal flaw, which was, as his former wife once put it, that “he found it everywhere. He was over the top. He saw mothers with Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy wherever he looked”. Why did it take a woman to spot it?

Perhaps because the idea that there are thousands of mothers abusing their children remains so dangerously popular. Many still sympathise with Michael Green, the former professor of forensic pathology at Sheffield University and one of the Home Office pathologists in the Sally Clark trial, whose published opinion is that up to 40 per cent of cot deaths may have been murders. Judges seem to believe that Professor Meadow and his former colleague David Southall, who was struck off by the GMC last year, were the only medical experts whose judgment was questionable. Yet as the founder and first president of the Royal College of Paediatrics, Professor Meadow has had huge influence on other paediatricians, even those he has not directly trained. The CBS programme 60 Minutes was bombarded with complaints from American doctors when it ran a critical feature about him last year.

Professor Meadow’s popularity as an expert witness demonstrates the urgent need to end the cult of the inexpert expert. In theory experts have a duty to help the court come to the right decision. In practice they are hired guns paid by lawyers who want to win. Silver-tongued doctors who do not fade in the witness box are bound to command a premium, and Professor Meadow was master of the soundbite. His statement that there was only a 1 in 73 million chance of Mrs Clark losing two babies in sudden and unexplained circumstances prompted the Royal Statistical Society to write to the Lord Chancellor denying any statistical basis for the assertion. But it must have electrified the court. Meadow’s Law — that “one cot death is a tragedy, two is suspicious, and three is murder” — gave juries a formula to hang on to in a turgid discussion. As word got around, solicitor after solicitor signed him up as a “safe pair of hands”.

A recent survey suggests that lawyers are bullying their experts more than ever. Bond Solon, a company that trains experts, found that 63 per cent of its clients, a rising number, say there are firms of solicitors that they will never work with again; 67 per cent say lawyers should not be present at expert discussions. Just over half say no to the question “Do you think lawyers encourage their expert to be a ‘truly independent witness’?”

Until courts demand more of experts, more miscarriages of justice could occur. Many paediatricians have already been put off child protection cases by the adverse publicity, and the failure of the GMC to act conclusively has only made this worse. The Establishment must shake off its torpor, demand that experts are experts and compensate those whom it has victimised. Justice must be seen to be done if mothers are to regain any confidence in the system.

Source

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Posted on Mon, Jan. 17, 2005

Parents fight Munchausen's syndrome label in court

Associated Press

BUTLER, Pa. - A 7-year-old boy and his 23-month-old sister are victims of their mother's lies, which led the medical community to believe the children were sick with a rare condition, county child-welfare authorities said.

The mother, Melissa Anne "Mannie" Taimuty-Loomis, and her husband, Ron, maintain their son, Ezra, and daughter Symia either are truly sick or are the victims of medical mistakes and misdiagnoses.

The dispute is playing out in court as the couple seek to reunite their family and win back custody of their three children. Testimony in the case began last week. It will continue soon, but a date has not been set.

Butler County Children and Youth Services in September took custody of Ezra, Symia and their 5-year-old sister, Adia. The agency said their mother fabricated Ezra and Symia's medical problems to make it look like they had mitochondrial disease.

"The family is devastated. The children were legitimately diagnosed with mitochondrial disease," said attorney Mildred Sweeney, who is representing Mannie Taimuty-Loomis. "A resident ... accused (Mannie Taimuty-Loomis) of fabricating symptoms, the attending physician didn't agree and the situation got way out of hand."

Another of Taimuty-Loomis' children, Jonah, died just short of his third birthday in January 2001. He had been born with a variety of verified medical problems.

Mannie Taimuty-Loomis, 30, is a stay-at-home mom who runs the Jonah and the Whale Foundation, a nonprofit that helps families with chronically ill children.

Late last summer, Ezra was being fed through a tube in his stomach and was being administered pain medication through an IV drip. His parents were preparing to move the boy from their Adams Township home into hospice care, said Dr. Mary Goessler, Ezra and Symia's pediatrician since April.

The children's health improved after they were placed in foster care, Goessler said. Ezra doesn't take medicine and now eats on his own, she said.

The boy is "very proud he is healthy now and no longer a sick little boy," Goessler said.

Goessler, who's also the head of pediatrics at Allegheny General Hospital, testified for the child-welfare agency during the first half of the trial. Court ended for the week before Sweeney and Jennifer Gilliland Vanasdale, who is representing Ron Taimuty-Loomis, could cross examine her.

A Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh pediatrician testified he believes Mannie Taimuty-Loomis has Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, a condition that compels caregivers to harm their children or exaggerate or falsely report their children's medical conditions.

But under cross examination, Dr. Basil Zitelli, who specializes in the treatment of difficult pediatric cases, conceded he's not a psychiatrist or a psychologist and has no specialty involving the medical treatment of adults.

Medical professionals sometimes use the Munchausen's syndrome by proxy label to quiet assertive parents who have children with hard-to-diagnose ailments, Sweeney said.

Dr. Bruce Cohen, a pediatric neurologist at the Cleveland Clinic and an expert in mitochondrial disease also testified he doubts Ezra and Symia have the condition.

Under questioning from the parents' attorneys, Cohen said he examined the boy and girl for about 20 minutes and didn't have the children's complete medical records when he made the diagnosis.

Source

 

[RainyOcean]

That is HORRIBLE. Mitochondrial disease IS hard to diagnose and it IS often hereditary. It is quite possible that both children could have it and that the stupid doctors wouldn't no what they were talking about. One thing I don't understand though is how a doctor could suspect a mother of falsely creating symptoms of a mitochondrial disease. The symptoms are too horrible. A parent who has a child with this problem is already under so much stress just trying to take care of him and make him happy and worrying about his health, I can't imagine how awful it would be to have to worry about having the children taken away from you too. :furious: :furious:

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Thu 20 Jan 2005

Abuse expert to face court over 'Munchausen' case

TANYA THOMPSON
HOME AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT

SCOTLAND’S leading child-abuse expert, whose diagnosis of the controversial condition Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP) resulted in dozens of children being taken into care, is to be called back to court to justify his actions in a landmark legal case.

Professor John Stephenson, who was a paediatrician in Glasgow, gave evidence more than a decade ago after a Scottish mother was accused of trying to murder her baby son. Her lawyers claim new evidence will exonerate her, and the case could result in dozens of convictions being overturned.

Parallels have been drawn with the Angela Cannings case - she was jailed for murdering her two sons but later cleared.

The latest case, due to be heard at Glasgow Sheriff Court in April, will reignite the bitter arguments over MSBP. Largely discredited, it is said to involve parents fabricating illnesses and deliberately harming their children in order to draw attention to themselves.

Identified in the 1970s by the consultant paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, MSBP has divided the medical community. It is claimed that Prof Stephenson has been involved in diagnosing at least 14 cases of the condition, resulting in a number of children being placed in council care.

Massimo Franchi, a Glasgow solicitor acting for six mothers who claim they were wrongly accused of child abuse, said yesterday that the families had been devastated by the allegations.

He said: "The doctors will have to justify what they’re saying about MSBP and prove this woman has suffered from the condition. It could mean going back to the Court of Appeal for other women who feel they were wrongly convicted."

The lawyer is considering calling Prof Meadow, who is under investigation by the General Medical Council, to give evidence. It was his testimony that led to a number of women in England - including Ms Cannings, Trupti Patel and Sally Clark - being wrongly convicted of murder.

The mother of four in the Glasgow case had two children taken into care after doctors said she was suffering from MSBP and harming her son to draw attention to herself.

In September 1993, after her son stopped breathing and was rushed to hospital, a civil court ruled that, "on the balance of probabilities", she was responsible, but no criminal charges were brought. It took two years to get the children back.

Last year, an investigation by The Scotsman found that at least 12 parents in Scotland had been accused of having MSBP, resulting in 19 children being placed in care.

The findings fuelled calls for a public inquiry, amid fears that hundreds of mothers may have been wrongly accused of child abuse and even murder.

Source

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

SILENCE HIM

Jan 29 2005

Mum blasts cot death professor's witch-hunt claim

Exclusive By Anthony Harwood And Megan Lloyd Davies


A MOTHER wrongly jailed for killing her babies lashed out at expert witness Professor Sir Roy Meadow yesterday after he claimed to be the victim of a witch-hunt.

His discredited evidence - suggesting mothers harm their children to draw attention to themselves - helped convict Angela Cannings.

Now the paediatrician, who faces a disciplinary panel next month, has hit back at critics of his theory of Munchausen's syndrome by proxy.

He told a conference in San Diego, California, that the "greatest danger" was for people to be afraid of speaking out about child abuse.

He added: "We must remember that silence is not golden. Sometimes it is deadly for children."

Yesterday Mrs Cannings - freed from a life term in December 2003 - said he should be silenced and barred from giving lectures. Prof Meadow had said the public was unwilling to accept that "a mother is as likely to injure a child as a father".

He told an audience of child-abuse experts: "The question of abuse by mothers is almost a taboo subject.

"The person who shatters that image is not going to be popular."

He won a standing ovation on Thursday after describing his "cataclysmic" ordeal" in the aftermath of the Cannings case and that of solicitor Sally Clark. Prof Meadow's theory - "One cot death is tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder" - had previously become known as Meadow's Law.

A review of nearly 300 cases of child-death was ordered after the high- profile acquittals, with 28 found potentially unsafe.

Prof Meadow said doctors and care workers were now being "vilified''.

Yesterday Mrs Cannings, 41, from Saltash, Cornwall, who served 18 months after two baby sons died, said: "If he is asking for sympathy, ask me what it has done to our family and all the others he has been involved with.

"He is trying to defend himself when he knows he has been discredited, and his only way to deal with that is to carry on preaching.

"I'm astounded that people are still listening to him. He should have been suspended and should be barred from lecturing."

Campaigner Penny Mellor said: "He has helped jail innocent women - if anyone knows about vilification they do."

Source

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Woman sentenced for giving child toxic drug doses



By Chris Foreman
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, February 1, 2005

An Indiana woman will serve a prison sentence for giving her young son toxic doses of Benadryl and Tylenol.

Catherine Irene Gerlesky, 32, of 957 Philadelphia St., will serve between 11 1/2 and 23 months in a state institution, Indiana County Common Pleas Judge Gregory Olson ruled Monday. In November, Gerlesky pleaded guilty but mentally ill to one count of aggravated assault.

On June 11, 2003, when Gerlesky's son was 4 years old, doctors at Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh discovered he had a near-fatal level of Benadryl in his system. Another toxicology screening showed the boy had about 10 times more Tylenol in his system than the regular prescribed dosage.

Medical experts initially concluded that Gerlesky suffered from a condition known as Munchausen's syndrome by proxy. The syndrome is a form of child abuse in which a caregiver causes, exaggerates or falsely reports symptoms in a child.

Dr. Christine Martone, director of the Allegheny County Behavior Clinic, testified at a September hearing, however, that Gerlesky was suffering from depressive and learning disorders and had borderline-to-mild intellectual impairment. Gerlesky's IQ was scored at 65, putting it within the mentally retarded range, Martone testified.

Martone said her interviews with Gerlesky showed that the woman substantially lacked an ability to understand the wrongfulness of her actions.

Through a plea agreement, prosecutors dropped seven other charges, including two felony counts of endangering the welfare of children, one count of robbery and a second count of aggravated assault.

After the completion of Gerlesky's prison term, she will be on probation for two years. She also will be fined $500 and will be responsible for $183.50 in court costs.

Source